Full Opinion

In The Court of Appeals Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo No. 07-26-00236-CV HAL VON LUEBBERT, APPELLANT V. CITY OF LUBBOCK, ET AL., APPELLEES On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 3 Lubbock County, Texas Trial Court No. CC-2025-CV-1103, Honorable Ben Webb, Presiding August 27, 2026 MEMORANDUM OPINION Before DOSS and YARBROUGH and PRATT, JJ. Appellant, Hal Von Luebbert, proceeding pro se, attempts to appeal from the trial court’s interlocutory Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment. Luebbert sued Appellees seeking declaratory relief and asserting various causes of action challenging the City of Lubbock’s designation of his dog as a dangerous dog. He later moved for summary judgment on his claims, but the trial court denied the motion. His claims remain pending in the trial court. We have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a final judgment or from an interlocutory order made immediately appealable by statute. See Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp., 39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001); Stary v. DeBord, 967 S.W.2d 352, 352–53 (Tex. 1998) (per curiam). Luebbert filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Section 51.014(a)(8) of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code, which permits an appeal from an interlocutory order that grants or denies a governmental unit’s plea to the jurisdiction. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE §§ 51.014(a)(8); 101.001(3) (defining a governmental unit). Neither prerequisite to an appeal under Section 51.014(a)(8) is present here. Luebbert is not a governmental unit, and the order from which he appeals does not grant or deny a plea to the jurisdiction. Rather, the order denies Luebbert’s motion for summary judgment. Because the trial court has not rendered a final judgment nor an appealable interlocutory order, we grant Appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.1 See In the Interest of C.V., No. 02-20-00281-CV, 2020 Tex. App. LEXIS 9446, at *2 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Dec. 3, 2020, no pet.) (per curiam) (mem. op.) (dismissing interlocutory appeal purportedly brought under Section 51.014(a)(8) because no governmental unit had filed a plea to the jurisdiction); In the Interest of I.C.D.N., No. 05-17-01426-CV, 2018 Tex. App. LEXIS 788, at *2 (Tex. App.—Dallas Jan. 29, 2018, no pet.) (mem. op.) (doing same). The appeal is dismissed. Per Curiam 1 Although Luebbert filed a response to Appellees’ motion to dismiss, he has not demonstrated any basis for continuing the appeal. 2